- (1.) Appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'Commission'), has preferred this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of March 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned verdict has disproved the scaling method and moderation technique pressed into service by the Commission for evaluating descriptive answer books for Rajasthan Administrative Services (Main) Examination 2012 (for short, 'Examination 2012'). Allowing the writ petition with certain disparaging remarks about functioning of the Commission, the writ Court has done away with scaling method and moderation technique and directed it to prepare result of Examination 2012 afresh on the basis of raw-marks obtained by the candidates.
(2.) Facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are recapitulated in chronological order as under: Respondent-writ petitioner, being eligible, offered his candidature, for selection pursuant to advertisement dated 6th of February 2012 issued by the Commission for Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Tehsildar Services Combined Examination 2012, as a non-gazetted government servant. The Commission conducted Preliminary Examination and its result was declared in the month of November 2012, wherein the respondent was declared successful to take up the Main Examination. In June 2013, Main Examination was held by the Commission and its result was announced in January 2014. As per the result of the Main Examination, cut-off marks for OBC (Male) Category were shown as 593, whereas the writpetitioner secured 576 marks. In the interregnum, during the process of selection, State Government increased the posts in the cadre of State services on 27th of January 2014, which is one of the causes of grievance for the respondent-petitioner, as according to his assertion after declaration of result of Preliminary Examination enhancement of the vacancy is not permissible. Adverting to the marks secured by him, the respondent has made a valiant attempt to assert that marks are not to his expectation and commensurating with his performance in the Main Examination. Elaborating his grievance against the marks awarded to him, the respondent has submitted that in the marksheet issued by the Commission for the Main Examination, raw-marks of the candidates were not disclosed and the result contained scaled marks only. For his so-called afflictions, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to substantiate the same but has simply made an omnibus averment that moderation technique and scaling method has been applied by the Commission in non-adherence of the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court. Besides that, certain vague averments are made in the writ petition for assailing the action of the Commission in adopting the moderation technique and scaling method. Without quoting any specific incident in general, the petitioner has made an attempt to castigate the scaling method and moderation technique by alleging that the same has resulted in grave injustice to the candidates who have taken up the competitive examination.
(3.) The writ petition was contested by the Commission. In its reply, the appellant-Commission has submitted that increase in the number of vacancies was a just decision of the Commission as it received intimation from the Government in this behalf and proviso to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules 1999 (for short, 'Rules of 1999') clearly envisage that before declaration of result for Preliminary Examination vacancies can be increased or decreased. While joining the issue with the respondent in adopting the moderation technique and scaling method, the Commission has defended its action by relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 2 WLC(Raj) 46. Refuting the positive assertion of the respondent that he was expecting better marks in the Examination 2012, Commission has submitted that self assessment of a candidate is not conclusive and for adjudging performance of an examinee, examiner is the best Judge. Appellant- Commission also stated in the reply that although respondentpetitioner has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court but there is no material particular about the aforesaid judgment. On the issue of non-disclosure of raw-marks secured by an individual, Commission has categorically averred in the return that raw-marks are disclosed and available on the website of the Commission.;